Yang, Manshu

e21605 Background: Several studies have demonstrated patients have a poor understanding of prognosis, survival and effectiveness of chemotherapy, particularly in the setting of advanced cancer. This study examines oncology patients’ understanding of their illness based on accurate reporting of stage at diagnosis as well as knowledge of remission status. Methods: 208 cancer patients previously treated at our large community based cancer institute participated in The Consumer-Based Cancer Care Value Index (CCCVI) Field Survey. Electronic medical record (EMR) documentation of stage at diagnosis and remission status were compared to patients’ self-reported responses. Concordance of responses and variables influencing discordance were evaluated. Results: 51.0% of patients’ self-reported cancer stage matched the abstracted stage with the highest concordance in the advanced cancer patients (72%) versus stage I-III patients (36.4%-61.5%). Unexpectedly, discordance was lower among advanced cancer patients as compared to stage I-III patients (p = 0.0528) Those who were concordant for cancer stage at diagnosis were significantly more likely to be female (p = 0.001), under the age of 65 (p = 0.01), have an income greater than $60,000 (p = 0.03), and have more education (p = 0.02). 64.4% of patients’ self-reported remission status matched the abstracted status. Nearly 30% of patients were not sure about their status even when they were in remission. Conclusions: Our findings confirm that more than one quarter of patients with advanced cancer have poor illness understanding, as well as highlights that an even greater number of patients with early stage I-III cancers have poor illness understanding. These observations highlight the need to improve illness understanding for patients across the entire cancer continuum.

Purpose: Several studies have demonstrated that patients have a poor understanding of prognosis, survival, and effectiveness of chemotherapy, particularly in the setting of advanced cancer. This study examines oncology patients’ understanding of their illness based on accurate reporting of stage at diagnosis and knowledge of cancer status (ie, free of cancer or in remission v active disease). Materials and Methods: Two hundred eight patients with cancer previously treated at our large community-based cancer institute participated in the Consumer-Based Cancer Care Value Index field survey. Electronic medical record documentation of stage at diagnosis and cancer status was compared with patients’ self-reported responses. Concordance of responses and variables influencing discordance were evaluated. Results: In 51.0% of patients, self-reported cancer stage matched the abstracted stage, with the highest concordance in patients with advanced cancer (72%) versus patients with stage I to III disease (36.4% to 61.5%). Unexpectedly, discordance was lower among patients with advanced cancer compared with patients with stage I to III cancer ( P = .0528). Patients who were concordant for cancer stage at diagnosis were significantly more likely to be female ( P = .001), be younger than age 65 years ( P = .01), have an income > $60,000 ( P = .03), and have more education ( P = .02). In 64.4% of patients, self-reported cancer status (ie, free of cancer or in remission v active disease) matched the abstracted status. Nearly 30% of patients were not sure about their status, even when they were free of cancer or in remission. Conclusion: Our findings confirm that more than one quarter of patients with advanced cancer have poor illness understanding and highlight that an even greater number of patients with early stage I to III cancer have poor illness understanding. These observations highlight the need to improve illness understanding for patients across the entire cancer continuum.

222 Background: Current approaches to measuring the quality of cancer care may not produce sufficient information to enable providers to structure care that aligns closely with their patients’ preferences. To close this gap, we developed the Consumer-based Cancer Care Value Index (CCCVI) survey, which assesses the aspects of cancer care that patients value the most and how their values align with their experience in receiving cancer care. Methods: The CCCVI field test included 721 adults who received cancer care in the last 12 months from 4 geographically diverse cancer care centers, including patients with varying stages of cancer, types of cancer, types of treatment (e.g., surgery, radiation, medical oncology), and demographic characteristics. The survey included items that asked patients to directly rate the “importance” of 24 aspects of cancer care, along with 24 corresponding items that measured the “frequency” with which they received each aspect of care. We evaluated the reliability and validity of the survey items, and developed “value grids” plots which visually depicted the “importance” scores against the “frequency” scores. We conducted subgroup analysis to examine income and racial/ethnic disparities in the extent of misalignment between patients’ values and experiences. Results: The survey demonstrated good internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.91) and acceptable-to-good construct and criterion validity. Value grids identified potential areas of improvement in the areas of how doctors communicate and how quickly patients get care. The subgroup analysis showed the most misalignments between patients’ values and experiences in the aspects of doctor communication for lower-income patients and in the aspects of getting care quickly for patients from racial/ethnic minority groups. Conclusions: The CCCVI survey is a reliable and valid tool for cancer care providers to identify top priority areas (i.e., high-importance but low-frequency areas) to facilitate their quality improvement efforts. It also recognizes subgroup variations in the misalignment between patients’ values and care experiences.